Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

All too often, I've met people who are hard-core for abortion, even partial birth abortion; yet they're dead-set against the death penalty for murderers.
I don't understand that mentality. :shrug:

Click to expand...

The reasoning is that many do not consider the fetus to be a human being. At the very least it is not a sentient being, and on that basis there is a philosophical argument that it's rights should be subject to those of the mother. In some views of the degree to which they should be so subject, it is acceptable for the mother to terminate the pregnancy if (i) her life is threatened by the pregnancy, (ii) her health is threatened by the pregnancy, (iii) if her economic security or sense of happiness is threatened by the pregnancy or (iv) she simply wants to terminate the pregnancy.

Some believe that the relative rights of the fetus increase as it matures and gets closer to actual sentience or otherwise develops more recognizable qualities of humanity.

In that sense, murderers are, despite their crimes, fully actualized and sentient human beings. Whatever rights are innate and inalienable to humanity, they clearly have them all. Fetuses and embryos simple do not have those with the same degree of clarity.

Further, some believe that the right to live in an inalienable human right. If true, then being a murderer doesn't affect that right. If it did affect the right, the right would not be "inalienable" by definition. One might argue, if the right to live is not inalienable, then what rights are? Probably there no inalienable rights in that view.

I can completely understand why some support abortion but not the death penalty, and why others support the death penalty and oppose abortion. I do find it puzzling when those who support the Death penalty, claim to believe in inalienable rights, though, as I can't imagine what they would be.

As for D&X abortions (i.e. "partial birth") they were very rare and only done because it was a non-surgical procedure, so safer and less painful for the mother. I don't think any mothers ever selected them except after their doctors recommended them for a variety of reasons, mostly related to the safety and comfort of the mother. I am a little disturbed that legislature might tell a doctor to use the second best method he knows of when dealing with my wife, my girlfriend, or my daughter, because I pay doctors for their medical expertise and do *not* look to legislatures for theirs.

it is acceptable for the mother to terminate the pregnancy if (i) her life is threatened by the pregnancy, (ii) her health is threatened by the pregnancy, (iii) if her economic security or sense of happiness is threatened by the pregnancy or (iv) she simply wants to terminate the pregnancy.

Click to expand...

That last one pretty much makes all the rest on your list redundent.

In that sense, murderers are, despite their crimes, fully actualized and sentient human beings. Whatever rights are innate and inalienable to humanity, they clearly have them all.

Click to expand...

Indeed, but that does not make them immune from punishment or make them not responsible for their actions.

Fetuses and embryos simple do not have those with the same degree of clarity.

Click to expand...

But what they do have, and the murderer does not, is innocence.

Further, some believe that the right to live in an inalienable human right. If true, then being a murderer doesn't affect that right. If it did affect the right, the right would not be "inalienable" by definition. One might argue, if the right to live is not inalienable, then what rights are? Probably there no inalienable rights in that view.

Click to expand...

Your definition of inalienable rights is ridiculous. You say that the death penalty is incompatible with inalienable rights. By that logic, so would incarceration or even the levying of fines. Or did you forget that Jefferson included "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happyness" among the certain inalienable rights.

Inalienable rights are simply natural rights, rights so fundamental that no reasonable person would ever willingly give them up. That doesn't mean they can't be taken from him. Of course any common criminal can deprive you of your life, liberty , or property (to quote John Locke's original text). By the same token, the government can deprive a criminal of his inalienable rights as punishment for crimes.

The founding fathers clearly believed in inalienable rights, and they believed in the death penalty. Was their understanding of the concept not as good as yours?

I do find it puzzling when those who support the Death penalty, claim to believe in inalienable rights, though, as I can't imagine what they would be.

Click to expand...

See above.

As for D&X abortions (i.e. "partial birth") they were very rare and only done because it was a non-surgical procedure, so safer and less painful for the mother. I don't think any mothers ever selected them except after their doctors recommended them for a variety of reasons, mostly related to the safety and comfort of the mother. I am a little disturbed that legislature might tell a doctor to use the second best method he knows of when dealing with my wife, my girlfriend, or my daughter, because I pay doctors for their medical expertise and do *not* look to legislatures for theirs.

Click to expand...

Partial birth abortion is a barbaric procedure akin to infanticide. Banning it was certainly justified.

Consider the following scenario: a pregnant woman is informed she requires a (late-stage) termination or she will die.
She refuses, when she gets near to full-term, collapses, is rushed into surgery and the doctors save the baby with a Caesarian, but the woman dies from complications.

Is the newborn baby responsible for its mother's death?

Are the doctors responsible for not forcing or compelling the woman to terminate?

If the woman had the termination instead, would she or the doctors be responsible for the "murder" of the baby?

Consider the following scenario: a pregnant woman is informed she requires a (late-stage) termination or she will die.
She refuses, when she gets near to full-term, collapses, is rushed into surgery and the doctors save the baby with a Caesarian, but the woman dies from complications.

Is the newborn baby responsible for its mother's death?

Are the doctors responsible for not forcing or compelling the woman to terminate?

If the woman had the termination instead, would she or the doctors be responsible for the "murder" of the baby?

Click to expand...

I'm for abortion if the woman's life is TRUELY in danger, or she was TRUELY raped. But we all know a VAST majority of abortions are simply because the pregnancy was a "mistake", or "at a bad time", or "not wanted".

IMO, I draw the line where the fetus has a brain and/or heart. An abortion is acceptable if it's done before the brain and/or heart is forming and active, but still irresponsible.

It depends on the circumstances as to which way I think about the death penalty as to just what crime was done to deserve it. If the crime was so hanous and vile and the person was found to be the one who did it with no other person that could have done it then I think they deserve the death penalty but it depends on each casees circumstances. Say the person was found insane as an example.

As to abortion, I think the woman should have the right, at the 18 birthday, to get whatever she wants done, done. Abortion during the first 60 days is acceptable to me. After that adoption or other ways of finding a place would be better. Girls under 18 should have the DNA found out as to who created the child and they should be put in jail for statuatory rape in most instances unless the girl marries whoever did it.

Pro-choice is not misleading. It simply means you are in favor of individuals having a choice, on the other hand I don't understand why people become weak over the phrase 'for abortion'. Yes if you believe others have a choice or if you believe you have a choice then yes you are indeed 'for abortion' under certain circumstances. I understand someone who would never terminate a pregnancy, what I don't understand are those who would take that legal right away from others.

Pro-choice is not misleading. It simply means you are in favor of individuals having a choice, on the other hand I don't understand why people become weak over the phrase 'for abortion'. Yes if you believe others have a choice or if you believe you have a choice then yes you are indeed 'for abortion' under certain circumstances. I understand someone who would never terminate a pregnancy, what I don't understand are those who would take that legal right away from others.

Click to expand...

Legal right for choice? It has never existed. Unless you are also pro-choice for murder, pedophilia or rape? Its a misleading label.

Legal right as opposed to back street abortions. Legal right meaning the service is protected by law. So yea if there is no legal right then my choice becomes limited. Pro choice doesn't mean one would necessarily have an abortion or even agree with it as a personal choice, it simply allows for women to have the choice. I don't see how you can lump abortion with pedophilia, murder or rape, do you believe taking RU486 is a crime? Even without the surgical procedure its still an abortion. Would you suggest women being locked up with pedophiles, murderes and rapists? I am amazed at the moral tag placed on this subject. What do people care what a woman does with her womb anyway? People rarely take on the concern when all these unwanted babies are born. So no I don't think pro choice is misleading. Those who are against legal abortion are not pro choice, they want to take that particular choice away from women.

Pro choice is a term used specifically for abortion. I don't know of anyone who is suddenly confused and thinks 'well do they mean sugar or equal'. Again what does rape and murder have to do with being pro choice unless you think of abortion as criminal as rape and murder. If you look up the term it says

'Pro-choice describes the political and ethical view that a woman should have complete control over her fertility and pregnancy'

Pro choice is a term used specifically for abortion. I don't know of anyone who is suddenly confused and thinks 'well do they mean sugar or equal'. Again what does rape and murder have to do with being pro choice unless you think of abortion as criminal as rape and murder. If you look up the term it says

'Pro-choice describes the political and ethical view that a woman should have complete control over her fertility and pregnancy'

So what's so misleading about that?

Click to expand...

Nothing about the word pro-choice defines it as restricted to abortion. Pro-choice is the right to choose and I do not stand for the right of others to choose anything they think is right. As someone who accepts that other people have a right to abort their unborn children while disagreeing with their fundamental premise that it is not a child, I do not wish to be labelled as pro-choice.

No Sam but the definition is understood as such, no one needs to clarify that its restricted to abortion, I have never known anyone to be confused by the term. If you agree that other women have the right to abortion then you are indeed pro choice. It means you recognize another's right to that choice.